Notes · English LanguageUK · A-Levels

Original writing and commentary

The Original Writing task is the creative half of the non-exam assessment (Language in Action): an original piece of around 750 words in one of three genres - the power of persuasion, the power of storytelling or the power of information - produced from an annotated style model and accompanied by a reflective commentary of around 750 words. It rewards the expert, creative use of English (AO5) in the piece and the critical linguistic understanding (AO1-AO3) in the commentary.

4 sections~17 min reading time4 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 1 · Advanced 2

T·121212 / 12

Exam profile

AO5 · Demonstrate expertise and creativity in using English to communicate in a chosen genreAO1 · Apply linguistic methods and terminology in the reflective commentaryAO2 · Demonstrate critical understanding of the concepts informing the writing choicesAO3 · Analyse how contextual factors shape the crafted text (in the commentary)

Operators:writecraftanalysereflectjustify

basic level

A competent original piece in a clear genre with a commentary that identifies the main choices.

higher level

The full A-Level NEA rewards a crafted, controlled original piece and a commentary that analyses choices with precise metalanguage and links them to linguistic concepts.

Depth

Text

Contents · 4 sections

Original writing and commentary

The three genres and choosing a brief#

FoundationAQA 7702/C NEA Original WritingDfE GCE English Language subject content (NEA)

The three original-writing genres

Fig. 1The three 'powers' of the Original Writing task; the student crafts one piece of around 750 words in a chosen genre for a specific brief.

The Original Writing task asks for an original piece in one of three broad genres, each conceived as a 'power': the power of persuasion (rhetorical and persuasive writing - speeches, opinion pieces, campaign material, advertising, letters designed to move an audience), the power of storytelling (narrative and creative writing - short stories, extracts, dramatic monologues, travel writing, memoir), and the power of information (informative and explanatory writing - articles, guides, investigative journalism, information texts). The student chooses one genre and writes a single piece of around 750 words, crafted for a specific audience and purpose, accompanied by a reflective commentary.

Choosing the genre and brief well is the foundation of a strong piece. The choice should play to the student's strengths and interests while offering genuine scope for crafted, purposeful language - a brief that specifies a clear audience, purpose and context gives the writing focus and gives the commentary something concrete to analyse. As with directed writing, a vague brief ('write a story') produces unfocused work; a specific one ('write the opening of a short story that establishes an unsettling atmosphere through a child narrator, for an adult literary audience') defines the task and the choices to be justified.

Because the task is assessed for the EXPERT and CREATIVE use of English (AO5), the brief should be ambitious enough to demonstrate craft but manageable within 750 words. This usually means a tight focus - the opening of a story rather than a whole plot, a single persuasive speech rather than a campaign, a focused information article rather than a sprawling guide - so that the limited words can be used to craft language carefully rather than to cover ground. A well-chosen, tightly focused brief lets the student concentrate on the quality of the writing, which is what the task rewards.

Planning the task therefore means choosing a genre that suits the student's strengths, defining a specific brief (audience, purpose, context, genre conventions), and scoping it tightly for around 750 words of crafted writing. The commonest early mistakes are choosing too broad a brief (a whole story or campaign that cannot be developed with care in the word count), a vague brief that gives neither the writing nor the commentary a clear focus, or a genre the student cannot craft convincingly. A sharp, ambitious-but-manageable brief is the platform for both a strong piece and a strong commentary, since the commentary will analyse how the writing met the brief's specific demands.

Worked example

Scoping a brief tightly

A student wants to write a persuasive piece about climate change. Turn this into a tightly scoped, craftable brief.

Narrow the genre and form
Choose a specific persuasive form: a speech to be delivered by a student at a school assembly, rather than 'a persuasive piece about climate change' in general.
Specify audience and purpose
Audience: fellow students aged 16-18; purpose: to persuade them to join a specific school action; context: a two-minute assembly slot.
Scope for the word count
A two-minute spoken speech is roughly the right length for around 750 words, so the brief fits the task without needing to be padded or truncated.
Note the craft opportunities
The brief invites rhetorical craft (direct address, tripling, rhetorical questions, an emotive-then-reasoned structure) that the commentary can then analyse - giving both piece and commentary a clear focus.

Result: The broad topic becomes a tightly scoped brief - a persuasive two-minute assembly speech to 16-18-year-old peers urging a specific action - which fits 750 words, invites analysable rhetorical craft, and gives the commentary concrete choices to justify.

Typical mistakes

Choosing too broad a brief (a whole story or campaign) that cannot be crafted carefully within the word count.
A vague brief that gives neither the writing nor the commentary a clear audience, purpose and focus.

Active revision

Choose one of the three genres and write a specific brief for a 750-word original piece, defining its audience, purpose, context and the effect you intend to achieve.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for English language (Department for Education)

Working from a style model#

StandardAQA 7702/C NEA Original WritingDfE GCE English Language subject content (NEA)

From style model to original piece

Fig. 2The style model is analysed and its techniques adapted (not copied) into the original piece, then reflected on in the commentary.

A defining feature of the task is that the original piece is produced from a STYLE MODEL - a professionally written mentor text in the chosen genre that the student analyses and uses to inform their own writing. The style model is not to be copied or imitated slavishly; it is studied to understand how expert writers achieve effects in the genre, and its techniques are then adapted (not lifted) into the student's own original piece. Choosing an apt, high-quality style model that genuinely matches the intended brief is therefore an important early decision, since it shapes and informs the whole piece.

Analysing the style model means applying the language levels to it exactly as one would in text analysis - identifying how its lexis, grammar, discourse structure, rhetorical devices and graphology create its effects, and understanding WHY those choices work for its genre, audience and purpose. A persuasive style model might reveal effective uses of direct address, patterning and modality; a narrative model, techniques of point of view, sentence variety and imagery; an information model, structural clarity, register control and the handling of specialist content. This analysis is the bridge between the analytical skills of the whole course and the productive task: the student learns the craft of the genre by taking apart an expert example.

The style model is then used to inform, not dictate, the original writing. The student takes the techniques and principles observed - a way of opening, a rhetorical strategy, a narrative device, a structural pattern - and adapts them to their own subject, audience and purpose, making independent choices rather than reproducing the model. The relationship is one of learning from and responding to the model, and part of the commentary's job is to explain how the model informed the piece and where the student's choices departed from or developed it. This deliberate, analysed relationship to a mentor text is what distinguishes the task from free creative writing.

Working from a style model therefore means selecting an apt, high-quality mentor text, analysing how it achieves its effects through the language levels, and adapting (not copying) its techniques into an original piece for a different brief. The commonest weaknesses are choosing a poor or mismatched model, analysing it superficially (noticing effects without understanding how they are made), or either ignoring the model in the writing or copying it too closely. A well-analysed model that genuinely informs an independent piece is the foundation of both a crafted original text and a commentary that can explain, with linguistic precision, where the writing's techniques came from and why they work.

Worked example

Analysing and adapting a style model

Your style model, a piece of travel writing, opens with a vivid present-tense sensory description. Show how to analyse and adapt this.

Analyse the technique
Identify the features: present-tense verbs create immediacy; concrete sensory lexis (sights, sounds, smells) builds atmosphere; a short opening sentence hooks the reader before longer descriptive sentences unfold.
Understand why it works
The present tense and sensory detail place the reader THERE, which suits travel writing's purpose of transporting the reader - the effect is made by specific, nameable choices.
Adapt to your brief
For your own piece (say, a memoir of a market), adapt the principle - open in the present tense with sensory detail - but to YOUR subject and voice, choosing your own images rather than the model's.
Note it for the commentary
Record the adaptation: the model taught the immediacy technique, and your commentary can explain that you borrowed the present-tense sensory opening but applied it to a different scene with your own lexical choices.

Result: The analysis names the model's present-tense sensory opening and explains why it creates immediacy; the adaptation applies the same technique to a different subject with the student's own images - an informed, independent use of the style model that the commentary can then justify with precise metalanguage.

Typical mistakes

Choosing a poor or mismatched style model, or analysing it superficially (noticing effects without understanding how they are constructed).
Either ignoring the model in the actual writing, or copying it so closely that the piece is not genuinely original.

Active revision

Choose a short professional text in your chosen genre as a style model and analyse three specific techniques it uses to achieve its effects, noting how you might adapt each in your own original piece.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level English Language (7702) specification (AQA)

Crafting the original piece#

AdvancedAQA 7702/C NEA Original WritingDfE GCE English Language subject content (NEA)

Crafting across the language levels

Fig. 3The original piece is crafted at every level - register, lexis, grammar, discourse and genre technique - each choice serving the intended effect on the audience.

The original piece is assessed for expertise and creativity in the use of English (AO5), which means the writing must be deliberately CRAFTED at every language level for its audience, purpose and genre - not merely competent, but controlled and effective. Crafting begins with register: the field, tenor and mode must suit the brief precisely, and the writer's control of formality, voice and specialist content signals command of the genre. On top of this base, the writer shapes lexis (precise, connotative, genre-appropriate word choice), grammar (varied and purposeful sentence structures - a short sentence for impact, subordination for complexity) and discourse (a deliberate structure with an effective opening, development and ending).

Each genre rewards its own repertoire of techniques, deployed for effect. Persuasive writing crafts rhetorical devices (direct address, rhetorical questions, tripling and listing, antithesis, emotive and evaluative lexis, modality) into a persuasive structure that moves the audience. Narrative writing crafts point of view and voice, sentence variety and rhythm, imagery and figurative language, dialogue and pacing to create atmosphere and engagement. Informative writing crafts clarity, logical structure, an authoritative but accessible register, and the skilful handling of specialist material for a non-expert reader. In every case the mark of quality is that the techniques are used purposefully - each choice serving the intended effect - rather than scattered decoratively.

Control and precision distinguish the best pieces. Strong original writing is deliberately shaped and sustained - a consistent voice, a controlled structure, a clear sense of audience throughout - and technically accurate, since errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling undermine the impression of expertise (accurate writing is itself part of AO5). Ambition should be matched by control: an over-reaching piece that loses coherence scores less than a tightly controlled piece that achieves its more modest aims fully. Redrafting is essential - crafting is a process of revision, tightening and refining towards the intended effect.

Crafting the original piece therefore means controlling register for the brief, shaping lexis, grammar and discourse purposefully, deploying genre-appropriate techniques for effect, and sustaining a controlled, accurate, coherent voice throughout - refined through redrafting. The commonest weaknesses are writing that is competent but unremarkable (no evident craft or ambition), technique used decoratively rather than for effect, loss of control in an over-ambitious piece, and technical inaccuracy that undermines the sense of expertise. A crafted, controlled, purposeful piece - where every choice serves the intended effect on a specific audience - is what the expert-and-creative criterion of AO5 rewards, and it gives the commentary rich material to analyse.

Worked example

Crafting a persuasive opening for effect

Craft the opening of a persuasive assembly speech urging students to reduce waste, and identify the deliberate choices.

Hook with a rhetorical question and image
'How much of your lunch ends up in the bin? Every single day, our school throws away enough food to fill this hall.' - a rhetorical question engages the listener; the concrete image makes the abstract vivid.
Craft sentence variety
Follow the longer image sentence with a short, blunt one for impact: 'That has to stop.' - the contrast in length foregrounds the demand.
Use direct address and inclusive pronouns
'our school', 'you', 'we can change this' build a shared responsibility and a personal appeal - synthetic personalisation crafted for the peer audience.
Control the register
Keep the tenor direct and energetic but not preachy, suited to a peer-to-peer assembly - a controlled register matched to the brief.

Result: The opening crafts a rhetorical-question hook, a vivid concrete image, deliberate sentence-length contrast and inclusive direct address, all in a controlled peer-appropriate register - purposeful, effect-driven persuasive craft that demonstrates AO5 and gives the commentary specific choices to analyse.

Typical mistakes

Writing that is competent but shows no evident craft or ambition, or technique scattered decoratively rather than deployed for a purpose.
Losing control in an over-ambitious piece, or letting technical errors (grammar, punctuation, spelling) undermine the impression of expertise.

Active revision

Write and then redraft the opening 150 words of your chosen original piece, crafting register, sentence variety and one genre-appropriate technique for a specific effect on your target audience.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for English language (Department for Education)

Writing the reflective commentary#

AdvancedAQA 7702/C NEA Original WritingDfE GCE English Language subject content (NEA)

The piece and the commentary

Fig. 4The piece is assessed for creative expertise (AO5) and the commentary for linguistic analysis of the same text (AO1-AO3); together they fuse producing and analysing language.

The reflective commentary (around 750 words) accompanies the original piece and turns the creative task into a linguistic one: it requires the student to explain and justify their writing choices using precise metalanguage, demonstrating that the crafting was deliberate and informed by the knowledge of the course. Where the piece is assessed for creative expertise (AO5), the commentary is assessed for the application of linguistic methods and terminology (AO1), critical understanding of concepts (AO2) and analysis of how contextual factors shaped the text (AO3). The commentary is thus the piece turned back on itself and analysed as the student would analyse any text.

A strong commentary analyses the SPECIFIC choices in the piece rather than describing the writing process in general. It identifies particular features - a rhetorical device, a grammatical structure, a lexical choice, a structural decision - and explains, with accurate terminology, what effect each was intended to achieve for the audience and purpose, exactly as an analytical answer would (feature to effect to intended meaning). It also explains how the style model informed the choices and how the piece met (or deliberately departed from) the brief. The commentary should quote or reference specific moments in the piece, not speak in vague generalities about 'making it persuasive'.

The best commentaries connect the writing choices to LINGUISTIC CONCEPTS from the course - relating a persuasive strategy to Fairclough's synthetic personalisation, a register choice to Halliday's field/tenor/mode, an audience-positioning device to the study of representation and power. This demonstrates AO2 (critical understanding of concepts) and shows that the creative writing was informed by genuine linguistic knowledge, not just intuition. The commentary is where the whole course's analytical vocabulary is brought to bear on the student's own text, integrating the productive and analytical sides of the subject.

Writing an effective commentary therefore means analysing specific choices with precise metalanguage (feature to effect to intended meaning), explaining how the style model and the brief shaped them, and connecting the choices to named linguistic concepts. The commonest weaknesses are describing the writing PROCESS ('first I wrote a draft, then I changed some words') instead of analysing choices, speaking in vague generalities without terminology or specific reference, and failing to link choices to concepts. A precise, analytical, concept-linked commentary demonstrates that the creative expertise of the piece rested on genuine linguistic understanding - which is the whole point of pairing the two tasks, and the culmination of the course's fusion of analysing and producing language.

Worked example

Upgrading a process-description to analysis

Improve this weak commentary sentence: 'I started with a question to grab attention and then used some short sentences to make it punchy.'

Diagnose the weakness
The sentence describes the process ('I started with... then used') and uses vague terms ('grab attention', 'punchy') without precise metalanguage or a concept link.
Name the features precisely
Replace 'a question' with 'an opening rhetorical interrogative' and 'some short sentences' with 'a deliberately short simple sentence following a longer complex one'.
Analyse the effect
'The rhetorical interrogative directly addresses the audience and positions them to reflect, while the contrast between the long complex sentence and the following short simple sentence foregrounds the demand for emphasis.'
Link to a concept
'This direct address is a form of synthetic personalisation (Fairclough), addressing a whole assembly as if speaking to each listener individually to build a personal appeal.'

Result: The upgraded commentary names features precisely ('rhetorical interrogative', 'short simple sentence'), analyses their intended effect, and links the direct address to Fairclough's synthetic personalisation - analytical, metalinguistic and concept-linked, demonstrating AO1-AO3 rather than merely narrating the process.

Typical mistakes

Describing the writing PROCESS ('first I did X, then Y') instead of analysing the specific linguistic choices and their intended effects.
Speaking in vague generalities without precise terminology or specific reference to moments in the piece, and failing to link choices to concepts.

Active revision

Write a 150-word extract of a reflective commentary analysing two specific choices in your original piece, using precise metalanguage and linking at least one choice to a named linguistic concept.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level English Language (7702) specification (AQA)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for English language

AQA

AQA AS and A-level English Language (7702) specification

Original writing and commentary

4 sections~17 min reading time4 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 1 · Advanced 2

Original writing and commentary

Key points

Scoping a brief tightly

Key points

Analysing and adapting a style model

Key points

Crafting a persuasive opening for effect

Key points

Upgrading a process-description to analysis

Sources

Original writing and commentary

Key points

Scoping a brief tightly

Key points

Analysing and adapting a style model

Key points

Crafting a persuasive opening for effect

Key points

Upgrading a process-description to analysis

Sources